On hunting with less efficient weapons

I can get behind bow hunting and do it myself despite knowing its not the best choice. Long range hunting (300 yard +) is pure ego and a bad look for all hunters. At some point you are just target practicing on live targets.

I have some heavy skepticism that a shooter with a cold barrel and in hunting conditions can make 10/10 shots at those distances. I can make shot well beyond 600 yards on a bench rest and no time pressure.

Lets see them get 5 hours of sleep in a tent with 3 smelly dudes, hike 5 miles, glass the entire day. sit around in the cold for 9 hours, then make a shot all pent up and excited to see if they can make it.

I agree those shots are possible. I'm just not sure why you would take a shot like that when you can easily move in closer. People bow hunt these animals, its not like getting to 150 yards is impossible or even that difficult.

There is quite a bit of projection in these posts. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that someone else can't either.

I have no problem taking a 70-yard shot with my bow, a 300 yard shot with one of my handguns, or a 600 yard shot with my rifle. The reason for this is practice. If you want to be effective, you have to put in the work. Sure, if all you do is shoot 30 yards in your back yard or shoot to 100 from a bench, then I agree, you shouldn't be trying to make 70-yard bow shots or 600 yard rifle shots. However, if you put the work in, neither of those things are the boogy-woogy that most make them out to be.

Take a look at the Cold-bore challenge threads. Some pretty good shots here on the forum.
 
Take a look at the Cold-bore challenge threads. Some pretty good shots here on the forum.
That thread does not increase my confidence in long range hunters. Plenty of those posts have misses or 'hits' that would be bad shots on an animal. I'm happy they can shoot out that far but they should stick to hitting steel.

Its the same issue with archery and goes with the original point of this thread. All you are doing is talking about how under optimal conditions, with tons of training, with the right xyz you can use a means or method to take an animal. I agree many of the people in that thread can hunt at long ranges, but the questions is why? The answer is its exciting for the hunter. Neither you nor the archery people address the topic of an ethical kill for the animal.

It all boils down to being bored a rifle at reasonable ranges, sub 300 yards, and it being more fun for the hunter. No thought to the animal at all.

There is quite a bit of projection in these posts. Just because you can't do it doesn't mean that someone else can't either.

I'm not projecting, I am asking you to honestly take a look at why you are using sub-optimal means to kill an animal.
 
Long range hunting (300 yard +) is pure ego and a bad look for all hunters. At some point you are just target practicing on live targets.

I have some heavy skepticism that a shooter with a cold barrel and in hunting conditions can make 10/10 shots at those distances.
So can I assume, from the reasoning in your two posts, (i.e. always getting closer and probability for hits to be 100%) that you have NEVER missed a shot?
 
So can I assume, from the reasoning in your two posts, (i.e. always getting closer and probability for hits to be 100%) that you have NEVER missed a shot?
With a rifle at reasonable distances when shooting an animal? You are correct, I have never missed. I only take shots I am 100% confident in.

I'm assuming by your post you miss animals and take bad shots. In that case I recommend practice.
 
I'm not trying to be smug, when you finally hunt the Southwest PJ country...you will understand. The guys that have hunted it know exactly what I'm talking about.....

People definitely hunted PJ effectively before all the technology that has made long range shots more attainable, but that is certainly an example of a type of terrain where long range hunting made a big difference in success rates, especially on mature animals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
With a rifle at reasonable distances when shooting an animal? You are correct, I have never missed. I only take shots I am 100% confident in.

I'm assuming by your post you miss animals and take bad shots. In that case I recommend practice.
Your confidence is admirable, I’ll give you that.

I’d encourage you to return to this conversation when you get back down here to Earth.

I’ve known and talked to a lot of hunters, just like most anyone with a passion for the outdoors. Many of those were, or are very good marksmen as well. I can’t say I’ve ever met a one that’s never missed or had a bad hit. Certainly not one that did very much hunting. The odds just don’t favor it. Can I get your autograph?
 
I'm not trying to be smug, when you finally hunt the Southwest PJ country...you will understand. The guys that have hunted it know exactly what I'm talking about.....
Honest question. What is PJ country? All the bluster of comparing hunt methods aside, I haven't heard of that part of the country.
 
Still a relative newbie to hunting here, with two deer to my name—one via rifle, the other via crossbow. I’m very interested in picking up a compound bow and getting proficient with it, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have some hesitation about hunting with it when there’s a more powerful weapon permitted during the same season (meaning the crossbow: I use a Ravin R10 with a quality scope and it’s a tack-driver out to 50 yards).

I imagine this is one of those quasi-religious questions in the hunting world, and one that’s probably been written about a million times, so if anyone knows of a good article or thread that covers this, I’d be grateful for the pointer.
My question is: what’s the justification for using a less proficient/accurate weapon to hunt? Why would we want to use a primitive weapon, or a muzzleloader or a compound bow, when such weapons increase the likelihood that the hunter may injure an animal? (Actually, is that even true or am I making a false assumption? I’m just assuming we’re more likely to injure with an arrow than a bullet.) If our goal is to follow fair chase and to harvest, say, a deer as efficiently and ethically and quickly as possible, shouldn’t the law demand that we always use the weapon that will get that job done best? This is an aspect of hunting seasons/guidelines that I still haven’t grasped.

Is the answer the sort of obvious, sentimental one?---that some hunters just prefer bows to rifles and so natural resource departments allow for archery seasons to accommodate that, even though (again I’m making an assumption) rifles kill more efficiently? If that’s the case, isn’t that idea in conflict with the priority of killing cleanly? Don’t muzzleloaders, for example, increase the chance that someone will make a bad shot? (I do realize that new muzzleloaders are pretty dang accurate.)

I should add, I really am asking with genuine curiosity, not an agenda of any kind. I’m not skeptical about having these seasons---I’m just not sure I understand the rationales behind them, and am very open to being persuaded. If the answer is that we want to give the deer a better chance by making hunting a bit harder---and so this is a way to prolong the hunting season and avoid over-harvesting---are we accomplishing that goal without injuring lots of animals in the process?
For me the choosen weapon dictates the skill required to ethically harvest said critters. Each weapon requires a certain set of skills and ethics/restrictions. I feel it changes the feel, pace, and expectations of the hunt. I feel like my set of personal limits still guarantees ethical outcomes no matter the weapon.
 
This thread could have been titled "on posting with less efficient brain power". Some posts in this thread are impressively fueled by a great amount of confidence coupled with a low amount of knowledge. Also, some very informed posts in here too...
 
This is a real thing, how many times do you plan a stalk only 300-400 yards away and when you get there think huh 🤔 this looks nothing like did through my binos?
Even on archery shots, I've started carrying two strips or orange marking tape in a pocket. Then I mark where I shot from and where the animal was standing when they were shot. Even at 40 yards it's tough sometimes to go back and recreate exactly where you and the animal were. Narrowing down the exact flight angle of an arrow can be a tremendous help in finding the arrow. I had a buddy this year that never found his passthrough arrow on a bull. And I've left three passthrough arrows on the mountain in the past that I couldn't find. I can't imagine shooting something at several hundred yards and then trying to find the exact spot they were at.
 
I
Even on archery shots, I've started carrying two strips or orange marking tape in a pocket. Then I mark where I shot from and where the animal was standing when they were shot. Even at 40 yards it's tough sometimes to go back and recreate exactly where you and the animal were. Narrowing down the exact flight angle of an arrow can be a tremendous help in finding the arrow. I had a buddy this year that never found his passthrough arrow on a bull. And I've left three passthrough arrows on the mountain in the past that I couldn't find. I can't imagine shooting something at several hundred yards and then trying to find the exact spot they were at.
agree with this. Speaking of rifle hunting, It can be very difficult to recover an animal that might have been only 200 yards across a canyon but required 30 minutes of hiking down into and up the other side and then locate where it was standing, find blood trail or lack there of, and ultimately have a successful hunt. Elevation adds difficulty as well among other things.
 
I

agree with this. Speaking of rifle hunting, It can be very difficult to recover an animal that might have been only 200 yards across a canyon but required 30 minutes of hiking down into and up the other side and then locate where it was standing, find blood trail or lack there of, and ultimately have a successful hunt. Elevation adds difficulty as well among other things.

This is where shooting a compass bearing, using a rangefinder, starting an ONX track, marking your shot location with a high piece of tape, and taking pictures with your phone can really help. I take a lot of pictures and using the editing function to mark shot location and spot last seen can be very helpful. In my woods, even a moderate shot of 150 yards across a draw can result in a deer going out of sight on the other side of a finger evening if it ultimately only runs 25 yards.
 
Speaking of rifle hunting, It can be very difficult to recover an animal that might have been only 200 yards across a canyon but required 30 minutes of hiking down into and up the other side and then locate where it was standing, find blood trail or lack there of, and ultimately have a successful hunt. Elevation adds difficulty as well among other things.

I'd take that deal. I'd rather shoot something I can see and work hard than wonder about when something easier is going to happen.

This is where shooting a compass bearing, using a rangefinder, starting an ONX track, marking your shot location with a high piece of tape, and taking pictures with your phone can really help. I take a lot of pictures and using the editing function to mark shot location and spot last seen can be very helpful.

We're turning this thread into "most efficient hunting."
 
Oh, ok. I’ve shot 23 bulls over 350” and 49 P&Y whitetail. Guess I must be doing something seriously wrong. I’ll promptly start shooting my bow all year round because it’s not working for me and you said so. Feel better now? Like I said, you do you! Have a great season. I’m out!
wait… did you just say you’ve killed 23 bulls over 350?
 
Back
Top